Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c46: Chapter XXIX

History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c46

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXIX

v2.c46.1

There is a long gap after the 1st century B. c. in the history of Orissan Architecture, as in the case of her political history. It is extremely difficult to say at present how Orissan Architecture developed during the eight centuries which intervene between the second group of early cave temples of the Khandagiri-Udaygiri group of Jaina caves and the earliest mediaeval temples. Our materials for these eight hundred years are yet very scanty with regard to the study of the evolution of art and totally non-existent with regard to architecture.

v2.c46.2

The earliest temples of mediaeval Orissa are not earlier than the 7th century A.D. and at that date we find that a regular temple type had already been evolved, consisting of a sanctum (*Vimāna*) with a spire (*Śikhara*) and a hall (*Maṇḍapa* or according to Orissan architectural terminology, *Jagamohana*). According to the literature on Indian Architecture, mediaeval temples are divided into three classes : (*a*) *Nāgara*, pertaining to Nāgara or Śrī-nagara, *i.e.*, Pāṭaliputra, the ancient metropolis of India, (*b*) *Drāviḍa* of the extreme south of India or the Tamil country and (*c*) *Veśara*, a term difficult to translate or denote, but which is generally taken to be South-West Indian or Early Chālukya. In the last century Fergusson divided Indian temples into three such precise classes : (*a*) Indo-Aryan, (*b*) Chālukyan and (*c*) Dravidian. His pioneer work contained the usual mistakes of all beginners. He thought that Dharwar and Orissa were the ancient seats of the Indo-Aryan style, whereas now we know there is not a single temple in the whole of Dharwar district in the Indo-Aryan or the Nāgara style. Temples of the Southern Maratha country and the Karṇāṭak are as much Nāgara in style as the great Rājarājeśvara temple at Tanjore. It remains only to be demonstrated with illustrations that the Śikhara temples of Dharwar, later than the 10th century A. D., are examples of the permeation of the Drāviḍa style in a country which was originally entirely Veśara; just as the Veśara style once permeated into the Tamil country and influenced the the earliest temples of Conjeeveram.¹ This simple mistake of the Pioneer work on the history of Indian architecture was and is still being quoted in serious works on architecture in the present century. The late Mr. Mono Mohan Ganguly, B.E., writing in 1912, quotes this mistake of Fergusson in *foto*. Mr. Ganguly was an engineer by profession and a fairly qualified student of the History of Indian Architecture. Yet only seventeen years ago he said "to whichever part of India may we turn our attention, e.g., Benares, Mathura, Brindaban, &c., we notice a curious mixture of the Indo-Aryan, Saracenic, and other styles. Orissa towers above all in solitary grandeur; this significant fact has raised it in the estimation of those who study the genesis and evolution of architecture in India from a scientific stand-point."² One is tempted to ask how many temples older than the 18th century in date exist in a complete state in Benares, Mathurā and Brindāban? The late Mr. Ganguly says nothing of the Khajuraho temple type, which is a sub-division of the *Nāgara* style, though situated in a remote out-of-the-way place of Central India. As a matter of fact, the Orissan style, though originally regarded as belonging to the *Nāgara* class, is not *Nāgara* at all. Even before the Muhāmmadan conquest the Orissan temple-type had come to be regarded as a separate style in Indian temple architecture. An inscription in the *Mukha-maṇḍapa* of the Amriteśvara temple at Hoḷal contains an interesting record. It serves as a label for the capital of a finely curved pillar, called *Śri-Kāra* in the inscription. The inscription records that the sculptor Bammoja, the pupil of Pādoja of Soge was a *Viśvakarman*, i.e., architect of the Kali age and had mastered the sixty-four *Kalās* or arts and had invented (? studied) the four types of buildings, viz., *Nāgara*, *Kāliṅga*, *Drāviḷa* (*Drāviḍa*), and *Veśara*.¹ This inscription from Hoḷal in the Bellary district proves that long before the Muhammadan conquest of Northern India the Architects of *Kāliṅga* had won for themselves separate recognition among contemporary architects all over India.

v2.c46.3

¹ *Rea-Pallava Architecture.*

v2.c46.4

² *Orissa and her remains—Ancient and Mediaeval, Calcutta, 1912, pp. 106-107.*

v2.c46.5

¹ Annual Report of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent, Southern Circle for Epigraphy, for 1915, Pp. 49, 90.

v2.c46.6

In the earliest type of the mediæval Orissa temple the three regular features, viz., *Vimāna*, *Jagamohana* and *Śikhara*, are present in complete forms. During the six centuries of the existence of the *Kāliṅgan* type of temples new features were added and older ones were metamorphosed in form but remained constant factors. We do not know of any instance of a flat-roofed temple of the Gupta period, like that of Bhumra, Nachna Kuthara and Lāḍ Khān’s temple at Aihole,¹ in Orissa or the surrounding district, which were at one time within the zone of higher influence. There is a consensus of opinion among scholars that among mediæval temples of Orissa the Paraśurāmeśvara of Bhuvaneśvara is the oldest.² This opinion is certainly correct, because in the Paraśurāmeśvara and its allied type, the twin temples at Gandharāḍi and the Mukteśvara at Bhuvaneśvara, we find a modest *Śikhara* of the same type as the Daśāvatāra temple at Deogaḍh in the Jhansi district and the Durgā temple at Aihole³ in the Bijapur district of the Bombay Presidency. In Northern India the only other temple with a similar modest *Śikhara* is the temple of Śiva at Nachna Kuthara.⁴ The difference between this early *Śikhara* in Kalingan temples and its later developements, as is to be seen in the temples of Liṅgarāja or Kṛittivāsa, Ananta Vāsudeva, Brahmeśvara, etc., at Bhuvaneśvara and that of Jagannātha at Puri, is that the older type of the *Śikhara* in the first group curves gradually but the later type takes a more pronounced curve near the top.

v2.c46.7

¹ See the discussion in "*The Oldest Brahmanical Temples*" Modern Review, 1929, pp.

v2.c46.8

² Coomaraswamy—*History of Indian and Indonasian Art* p. 115. ; Mano Mohan Ganguly—*Orissa and Her Remains*, p. 273 ; Fergusson—*A History of Indian and Eastern Architecture*, 2nd. edition, 1910. Vol. I.

v2.c46.9

³ Cousens—*Chalukyan Architecture*, Pls.

v2.c46.10

⁴ *Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, for the year ending 31st March 1919.* pl.

v2.c46.11

The temple of Paraśurāmeśvara shows a completely evolved type; the *Vimāna* is regularly cruciform or *Ratha* according to local technology as preserved by the late Mr. Ganguly, a rectangular *Jagamohana*, with arrangements for lighting its interior. The *Prāsāda Lakṣaṇam* of the *Bṛhat-saṃhitā* of Varāha Mihira lays down that "The height of a temple should be three times the perpendicular height of the rectangular portion" and the late Mr. Ganguly has proved that in three temples at Bhuvaneśvara this rule had not been transgressed; Mukteśvara, Siddheśvara and Liṅgarāja.¹ Therefore in the case of the Paraśurāmeśvara this rule of Varāha Mihira had been transgressed. Unfortunately the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly had very little experience of South-Western and Southern temples when he wrote his work on Orissa and its remains in 1912 and therefore he makes a number of mistakes which are pardonable in the amateur. He argues from the type of the *Śikharas* of the Durga temple and Huchchimalligudi at Aihole that "Orissan art of temple building was transplanted in the Deccan as early as the fifth century A. D. at the latest."² It did not occur to him that while almost all of the Aihole and Badami temples can be precisely dated not a single building in Orissa, with the exception of the Jagannātha temple at Puri and the Sun temple at Konarak, can be dated within one generation. Moreover, it can not be understood for what reason the Orissan art of temple building should be transplanted to the Deccan. Temple building was not unknown in the Deccan and that country can boast of much older temples than any other part of India. The late Mr. Ganguly noticed Gupta influence in Orissan sculpture and states that Orissa was conquered by Samudragupta! There is no evidence to prove that what Mr. Ganguly knew as Orissa was ever conquered by Samudragupta. Further on the late lamented scholar introduces the pet theory of Mr. Havell and his school in the following words :—It is reasonable to suppose that a considerable length of time must have elapsed since the art began to be first practised in Orissa, for I have already drawn the reader's attention to definite and stereotyped system of technique followed in Orissan architecture and sculpture. I may accordingly safely conclude that the Orissan style of temple building was much developed in the beginning of the Christian era and even before that.”¹ Though a practical engineer the late Mr. Ganguly believed like most of Mr. Havell's disciples that temples with Śikharas could be as old as the beginning of the Christian era. Later on he states : “I have proved above that the temple of Paraśurāmeśvara is probably dated in the 5th or 6th century A. D. at the latest.”² Unfortunately for Mr. Ganguly there is a class of evidence which no amount of artistic argument can shake. The Navagraha slab over the antarāla in the Paraśurāmeśvara temple is inscribed with the names of the planets and in these inscriptions a class of palatal Śa has been used which has not been found anywhere in Northern or Southern India before the 8th century A. D. This form of palatal Śa is used for the first time in Pāla inscriptions the 9th century A. D. In this form, the hook or arc, which forms the proper left limb of the letter, is not joined to the proper right limb, which is a straight line. It is, therefore, impossible to assign the building of the Paraśurāmeśvara to any date before the 8th century and that in the later decades of that century.

v2.c46.12

¹ *Orissa ana Her Remains, pp. 132-33.*

v2.c46.13

² *Ibid., p. 272.*

v2.c46.14

¹ Ibid., p. 272.

v2.c46.15

² Ibid., p. 273

v2.c46.16

Front View of the Jagamohana—Rāja-Rāṇī Temple—showing Nāga-pillars

v2.c46.17

In the Paraśurāmeśvara and the later Mukteśvara, along with the twin temples of Gandharāḍi in the Baudh State one sees the earliest type of mediaeval temples of Orissa. The plan of the sanctum consists of a number of recessed corners on each of the four sides formed by intersecting rectangles of various dimensions. The ground-plan thus produced consists of a number of right angles on each of the four facades beginning with three. On each face of each of these facets ornaments, either a chaitya-window or a niche has been placed. Over the perpendicular portion of the walls there is a gradual inclination inwards, which is the beginning of the Śikhara. Generally the beginning of the Śikhara indicates the height of the sanctum in the interior. The spire or Śikhara in all early mediaeval temples is modest and they belong to one particular type all over India. The remains of the Śikhara in the Daśāvatāra temple at Deogaḍh shows the same outline as the Post-Gupta temples at Saṃkargaḍh and Nachna Kuthara, the temples of Durgā and Huchhimalligudi at Aihole, the twin temples at Gandharāḍi and the early Bhuvaneśvara temples of Paraśurāmeśvara and Mukteśvara. Had it not been for the discovery of the inscribed labels under the Nine Planets in the Antarāla of the Paraśurāmeśvara, everyone, arguing from the stand-point of the evolution of the Śikhara, would have come to the conclusion that the Paraśurāmeśvara and the Mukteśvara belong to the same period as the Daśāvatāra temple at Deogaḍh.

v2.c46.18

Seventeen years ago the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly made certain statements about the evolution of Orissan temple Architecture which may yet be believed by the credulous even now. "It is reasonable to suppose that a considerable length of time must have elapsed since the art began to be first practised in Orissa, for I have already drawn the reader's attention to definite and stereotyped system of technique followed in Orissan architecture and sculpture. I may accordingly safely conclude that the Orissan style of temple building was much developed in the beginning of the Christian era and even before that."¹ The conclusion is totally wrong; because, in the first place the Paraśurāmeśvara, the oldest temple in Orissa, can not be earlier than the 8th century A. D., according to the inscription on the Navagraha-slab, inspite of its resemblance to the Post-Gupta temples; in the second place there is no temple in Northern, Central or Southern Orissa the date of which is earlier than that of the Paraśurāmeśvara, and in the third place, none of the earlier group of the Khandagiri and Udaygiri caves are temples or shrines proper. Most of them are monasteries like the Svargapurī and Mañchapuri or the great Rāṇi-Nūr Gumphās or are single cells for hermits like the Bāgh or Sarpa Gumphās. There is thus a gap of at least eight hundred years between the latest Jaina cave of the earlier group at Khandagiri or Udaygiri and the earliest temple known in Orissa. Consequently, there is not the slightest possibility of the beginning of the evolution of the Orissan temple type in the pre-Christian centuries.

v2.c46.19

¹ Ibid., p. 272.

v2.c46.20

The earliest group of mediaeval temples consists of three structures:

v2.c46.21

Side view of the Dual Temples at Gandharaḍi, Baudh. Mandapas of the Paraśurāmeśvara type oldest in Orissa

v2.c46.22

(1) The Paraśurāmeśvara at Bhuvaneśvara.
(2) The twin temples at Gandharāḍi in the Baudh State and
(3) The Mukteśvara at Bhuvaneśvara.

v2.c46.23

These three temples are arranged in chronological order, the Paraśurāmeśvara being the oldest, both according to the inscription on the Navagraha-slab and according to the style of ornamentation. The twin temples at Gandharāḍi come immediately after this, the style of ornamentation proving its slightly later date. The Mukteśvara comes last of all, though its style of ornamentation is the best. All of these three shrines consist of a high Vimāna surmounted by a short Śikhara and a low Maṇḍapa in front. The Maṇḍapa or Jagamohana of the Paraśurāmeśvara and the twin temples at Gandharāḍi are similar in style, size and arrangement, but that of the Mukteśvara is altogether different in style, being what local architects of Orissa call a Piḍa-Deula.¹ The difference lies mainly in the construction of the roof. While the Paraśurāmeśvara and the twin temples at Gandharāḍi show the use of a roof of the type of a stone-hut with sloping edges, the roof of the Jagamohana of the Mukteśvara is a fairly high-stepped pyramid of the type of the later temples of Orissa, e.g., the Liṅgarāja or Kṛittivāsa at Bhuvaneśvara, Jagannātha at Puri and Sūrya Deul at Konarak.

v2.c46.24

¹ Ibid., p. 112.

v2.c46.25

In the style of ornamentation and the elevation of the Jagamohana the Paraśurāmeśvara agrees with the twin temples at Gandharāḍi but not with the Mukteśvara. In the former "The plan of the Jagamohana is rectangular, the larger side being in the same line with the face of the Vimāna the Rahapaga of which is 1 ft. 4 ins. ahead of the main body. The Bada of the porch 7 ft. in height is a low rectangular parallelopiped having a door opening both on the south and west respectively. It is topped by a sloping roof formed by slabs or stones 6 ft. long having in the centre, a sort of clere-story, or skylight of six windows in front, i.e., on the west, and twelve windows on the sides, i.e., south and north.”¹

v2.c46.26

¹ Ibid., pp. 295-96.

v2.c46.27

In order to support this clere-story there are two rows of three pillars each in the interior of the Jagamohana which gives it the appearance of the nave of a church. Though the appearance of the Jagamohana in the twin temples at Gandharāḍi is exactly similar, there is no clere-story in the latter and therefore there are no pillars in the interior and light is admitted through the front door. The roofs of the Gandharāḍi Jagamohanas are built on the cantilever principle. The sloping slabs of the edge of the roof support heavy flat slabs in the centre of the roof. In the case of the latter light is admitted into the interior of the Vimānas by large windows in the front façade of the Śikhara and consequently the Gandharāḍi temples are much better lighted than the sanctum or Vimāna of any other temple in Orissa. While there is a regularity in the elevation of the Jagamohanas of the Gandharāḍi temples there is no regularity in that of the Paraśurāmeśvara. In the former there is a door in front and at the back. On each side of each Jagamohana there is a window covered with a stone Jāli or lattice of blue chlorite. In the Paraśurāmeśvara there is a door in front, a window and a door on one side and a door only on the other side, while a fourth door leads into the interior of the *Vimāna*. In this group of early mediaeval temples of Orissa the *Jāli* or the lattice window is a constant feature. The *Jagamohana* of the Mukteśvara, though quite different in style, shows the use of such latticed windows, though inconspicuous amidst the jumble of ornamentation on the beams and the lintels.¹ Another peculiar characteristic of this earlier group of mediaeval temples of Orissa is the use of Nāga pillars, which though present in the twin temples at Gandharāḍi and the Mukteśvara, are absent in the Paraśurāmeśvara. In the twin temples at Gandharāḍi each door and window is flanked by a pair of round columns, around which is entwined the scaly body of a Nāga or a Nāgi. The Nāgapillars remain a constant but inconspicuous feature of the third group of Orissan temples and rise once more into prominence in the 12th century in the *Jagamohana* of the Rājārāṇi.

v2.c46.28

¹ *Ibid.*, *pl.* VI (A); IX.

v2.c46.29

In respect of ornamentation there is a vast difference between the Paraśurāmeśvara on the one hand and the twin temples of Gandharāḍi and the Mukteśvara on the other. In the Paraśarāmeśvara we meet with chaitya-windows on the body of the *Vimāna* and the *Śikhāra*, which are very slightly stylized in form; but on the facades of the *Jagamohana* there are quite a number of chaitya-window *motifs* carved in very low relief of the pure early Gupta style with large medallions, with a round or with a long angular projection towards the top, proving that the structure which bears them cannot be very far removed from the Imperial Gupta period. These Chaitya-windows fall into two different divisions :

v2.c46.30

I. With perfectly circular medallions and

v2.c46.31

II. With medallions round at the bottom but with a rectangular projection towards the top as on certain chaitya-windows on the lintel bearing the *Kshāntivādin Jātaka* discovered at Sarnath.¹

v2.c46.32

¹ *Catalogue of the Museum of Archaeology at Sarnath Pls.*

v2.c46.33

The first class of medallions are exactly similar to the exquisite medallions of the Chaitya-windows discovered by the writer at Bhumra in the Nagod State,² and by Rai Bahadur Pandit Daya Ram Sahni at Deogaḍh in the Jhansi district. The second class can be subdivided into many varieties. In certain cases the upper projection is connected with the lower end but in certain other cases it is divided into two parts as at Sarnath by a sunken panel. It is only by the grossness of the figures in the medallion and the absurdly low relief of the chaitya-windows that we can be sure of the fact that this class of carving is much later than the Gupta period proper. This is the last use of the pure Gupta form of the chaitya-window in Orissa.

v2.c46.34

² *Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 16, The Temple of Siva at Bhumara.*

v2.c46.35

The twin temples at Gandharāḍi in the Baudh State have been recently described,³ and are exactly similar to the Paraśurāmeśvara in plan and elevation. They are two temples, built on one platform, which are exactly similar to each other. The one on the left hand is dedicated to Śiva named Siddheśvara and its Śikhara is surmounted [Figure: Temple of Paraśurāmeśvara General View from South-Bhuvanesvara—Puri District]

v2.c46.36

³ *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society, Vol. XV.*

v2.c46.37

Temple of Parasuramesvara from South-Bhubaneswar District

v2.c46.38

by a Śivaliṅga. The second is dedicated to Vishnu, named Nilamādhava, and its Śikhara is surmounted by a wheel of blue chlorite. The principle of construction of the Jagamohanas at Gandharāḍi is slightly different from that of the Paraśurāmeśvara. Their roofs are built on the cantilever principle and originally it appears to have been supported on twelve large round pillars arranged as a hollow square. Thus each side had four pillars of which the central ones flanked an opening. Originally these two Jagamohanas appear to have been open on all sides; but later on the lintels on all sides appear to have given way and then it became necessary to fill in the gaps between pillars with the exception of the four openings with ashlar masonry. At the same time the side openings were filled up with a Jālī or lattice of blue chlorite towards the bottom and a frieze of four miniature temple Śikharas over it. This arrangement is not followed in later temples where the ingress of light into Jagamohana is through four or five stone pillars in the opening used as window-bars.

v2.c46.39

The style of ornamentation in the Jagamohanas of the Gandharāḍi temples is altogether different from that of the Paraśurameśvara. Even stylized chaitya-windows are rarely to be seen at Gandharāḍi except at the bases of the pilasters of the Vimāna. The ornamentation on these two Jagamohanas is very simple and much less over-crowded than that of the Mukteśvara.

v2.c46.40

The late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly noticed two bassi relievi on the Paraśurāmeśvara temple: The bas-relief on the northern niche of the Vimāna depicts a hunting scene. A man seated on a horse is spearing a lion; another piercing the body of an elephant, another again defending himself from the attack of a lion with a shield. The entrance to the porch on the south has a bas-relief with Gaṇeśa in the middle; on the left side is represented a Gandharva with an Apsarā on his leg and bearing with both hands a reticulated basket containing fruits; on the right is represented a man taking out a garland from a reticulated basket resembling that generally used for waste-paper; next to this, is a man carrying a jack-fruit on his shoulder, then a man with palm, and last comes an ascetic counting the beads of a rosary with his legs tied with a piece of cloth.

v2.c46.41

"The western doorway of the Jagamohana shows the characteristic figure of Gaja-Lakshmi; on the right side is represented the worship of Siva Linga; and on the left is depicted the scene of capture of a wild elephant by domestic ones. The wild elephant has one of his legs tied with a rope; a man on foot is cautiously attempting to tie the right hind leg of the wild elephant with the noosed end of a rope; and the animal is kept at bay with a long spear by the rider of an elephant in front."¹ The windows on the sides "are decorated with carvings of bands of musicians and groups of dancers in nice poses, some playing on *damaru*...some on *vīna*...and some on cymbals; the dancers are male; one of them is noticed to dance holding the ends of the scarf like an ordinary dancing girl of the present day. The frieze above the doors and windows stated above is nicely carved with artistic representations of elephants; it shows also the worship of the *Siva Lingam* by the naked anchorites with only a *kaupina* on."²

v2.c46.42

¹ *Orissa and Her Remains*, pp. 300-301.

v2.c46.43

² *Ibid.*, p. 301.

v2.c46.44

The ornamentation of the *Vimānas* and the *Jagamohanas* of the Gandharāḍi temples consists entirely of pilasters shaped as miniature temples and we miss the larger *chaitya*-windows of the Paraśurāmeśvara. This total absence of a post-Gupta decorative *motif* certainly indicates a later date. The majority of writers on Indian architecture are inclined to place the Paraśurāmeśvara in the middle of the 8th century A. D. In that case the twin temples at Gandharāḍi should be dated close to that century, approximately fifty years later than the Paraśurāmeśvara. The importance of the Gandharāḍi temples lies in the fact that they provide a link and that a very important one, in the chain of the evolution of the mediaeval Orissan temple type. Up to this time there were no connections between the Paraśurāmeśvara and the Lingarāja groups from the point of view of decorative motifs. Now we know that the Paraśurāmeśvara, the Gandharāḍi temples and the *Vimāna* of the Mukteśvara represent one particular stage, probably the earlier, in the evolution of the Orissan temple type.

v2.c46.45

The temple of Mukteśvara lies very close to that of the Paraśurāmeśvara. It is the latest specimen of the first group of mediaeval temples in Orissa. The *Vimāna* is of the same style as that of the Paraśurāmeśvara and the twin temples at Gandharāḍi but the *Jagamohana* is much later in date and is distinctly a later addition. At present the Mukteśvara is surrounded with three compound walls :

v2.c46.46

(1) An inner enclosure centaining the *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana* with a *Toraṇa* before the only entrance.

v2.c46.47

(2) A second enclosure separating the temple of Siddheśvara and other smaller shrines, on a high platform to the west, from the temple of Mukteśvara and the tank behind it.

v2.c46.48

(3) A retaining wall provided by the British P. W. D. enclosing the entire group. The Toraṇa stands free of the inner enclosure wall just in front of the only opening in it. The uprights are built in sections, their lower parts, square in section, bearing on each face a niche or a miniature temple relief. The shafts are 16-sided and the abacus consists of a Kirfimukha holding three strings of beads on each side of the mouths, which are continued on to the next, on each facet as loops, with a single pendant between each of them (not beaded tassels as supposed by the late Mr. Ganguly).¹ Over this there is a vedikā supporting an āmalaka, over which is another vedikā supporting a cruciform capital with four arms, but without any human figures. These capitals support the real arch, which is circular like a Roman arc but built in transverse section on the principle of the true Indian overlapping arch. The ends of this arch are shaped as heads of Makaras. In front and at the back a circular projection along the bottom of the arch issues and ends in two small chaitya-windows in relief on the sides. A small female figure rests on each side of this projecting arch while the top is occupied by another chaitya-window with a pure circular medallion containing a human head.² These important land-marks in the evolution of the chaitya-window, marking regular stages in the evolution of the decorative art of the Orissan School, have been described by the late Mr. Ganguly in the following words: "The arch has three big ornamental [Figure: The Vaitāl Deul—Front and Side Views of the Gopuram Bhuvanēśvara—Puri District]

v2.c46.49

¹ Ibid., p. 277.

v2.c46.50

² Ibid., Pl. VIII.

v2.c46.51

scroll works at the two ends and centre showing heads of human figures. In the intervening spaces between the scroll work are seen two recumbent female figures in graceful pose and symmetrically placed."¹ I have not seen a more glaring instance of a mistaken and misleading description from the pen of a man very well qualified to speak on the subject. Though the late Mr. Ganguly spent a long time in studying the temple of Mukteśvara, he appears to have missed the best ornament on the arch of the Toraṇa, the bizarre arabesque on the top, which is one of the most wonderful productions which the Oṛiyā artist ever conceived.

v2.c46.52

¹ Ibid., pp. 277-78.

v2.c46.53

The low compound wall is ornamented with a row of niches in relief bearing on their tops a row of miniature chaitya-windows, over which, separated by a projecting moulding, is a series of lotus petals, which certainly are the proto-type of the Afghan and Mughal Kāṅgurā battlements. The plan of the Jagamohana, which is the first structure one meets with immediately after entering the low enclosure, is entirely different from that of the Paraśurāmeśvara or the twin temples at Gandharāḍi. There are four projecting eaves, the eastern one of which has been turned into the Antarāla, when the Jagamohana was built. Three side ones still exist. They are regular porches very short in breadth, consisting of two uprights, supporting a sloping roof over which are the roof-slabs, corrugated on the surface like the roof-slabs of the great Śaiva monasteries at Chandrehe in the Rewa State,² and Ranod and Pawaya in the Gwalior State. Over this roof there is a projection rising perpendicularly, which is a mere stylized arrangement of a chaitya-window. The whole thing is surmounted by a grotesque lion. The openings on the side are filled in the style of the Gandharāḍi Jagamohanas with a Jāli or lattice below and a row of miniature Śikharas above. The Jagamohana of the Mukteśvara is the earliest specimen of the later Jagamohanas of mediæval temples of this country, which after the 12th century was adopted as the model of the Śikharas of Vimānas. It is a regular stepped pyramid. Out of the twelve steps in this pyramid, eight rise regularly from the bottom, while the remaining four are irregular, giving the appearance of a snub-nose.

v2.c46.54

² Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, for the year ending 31st March, 1920, Pl.

v2.c46.55

The art of the decorator reached the highest standard of excellence between the dates of the construction of the Vimāna and the Jagamohana of the Mukteśvara. Comparatively speaking, the decorative art of the Jagamohana is higher in standard of excellence than the Vimāna. At the same time the decorator of the Jagamohana of the Mukteśvara had reached a much higher level in his own art than that of the Vimāna and the Jagamohana of the Lingarāja or Kṛttivāsa. Here perhaps for the first time we find human figures, used as decorative motifs placed in alto-relievo against the walls of the Jagamohana; up to the date of the Paraśurāmeśvara, they were either placed in sunken panels or in medallions of niches or chaitya-windows. In this period there is practically no unnaturalism, want of equipoise or provincial mannerisms. Therefore, the majority of writers on the subject have praised the art of the Mukteśvara very highly. Fergusson calls it "The gem of Orissan Architecture,"¹ others call it the best period of Orissan Art,² even the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly was moved by it: "The temple of Muktesvara may be styled the epitome of Orissan Architecture showing all that is best in it. It may be appropriately called a dream in sand-stone, adapting the immortal phraseology of Colonel Sleeman regarding Taj Mohal."³

v2.c46.56

¹ A History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 2nd Edition, 1910 Vol. I.

v2.c46.57

² William Cohn—Indische Plastic, p. 70.

v2.c46.58

³ Orissa and Her Remains, p. 275.

v2.c46.59

The Vimāna of the Paraśurāmeśvara, the entire structures of the twin temples at Gandharāḍi and Mukteśvara agree in one detail: the exteriors are decorated with a number of niches or miniature temples of different sizes very often ornamented by rows of super-imposed chaitya-windows in fret-work.⁴ The windows of the Jagamohana of the Mukteśvara are enclosed in an arrangement of heavily carved frames. The Jāli or lattice itself bears three narrow but graceful bands all round, carved out of the same piece of stone. This is kept in place by two uprights, a sill and a lintel consisting of four or five separate pieces, over which there is an architrave intended to fill up the space above the lattice up to the height of the pilasters on each side.⁵ On the lintels and the jambs enclosing the lattice there is an ornamental scroll forming a number of round panels which contain a number of humorous scenes, as on the celebrated monkey medallions on the railings of Bharhut stūpa. Some of them have been described by the late Mr. Ganguly.

v2.c46.60

⁴ Ibid., Pl. 7.

v2.c46.61

⁵ Ibid., Pl. 9.

v2.c46.62

"A crab holds a monkey and drags it down; another monkey hanging down from a neighbouring tree sees this sorrowful plight, and catching hold of its brother makes strenuous efforts to save it from its assailant; another big monkey is entwining one of its arms round the second monkey to prevent it from falling down. In another scene, two monkeys have been depicted as annoying a crocodile. In the next scene a monkey is represented as sitting on a crocodile, and two other monkeys are climbing up two trees on the two sides. The above three scenes are repeated on the right side of the window with variations. In the topmost portion of the frame containing the above scenes are depicted the monkeys at home; this has been obliterated to some extent. The last piece at the right corner shows an erect monkey passing its fingers through the hairs of another in search of insects. On the top of this there is a bas-relief with one Makara head at each end and eight groups of flying Gandharvas, each Gandharva carrying a garland in both hands and supporting a nymph, or Apsarā on the left leg which is outstretched with bent knee."¹

v2.c46.63

¹ Ibid., p. 284.

v2.c46.64

The Mukteśvara also shows the use of decorative bas-reliefs of human or divine incidents for the first time in mediæval temples of Orissa. I reproduce the crabbed description of the late Mr. Ganguly:

v2.c46.65

"The temple or the Vimana contains the figures of ascetics in meditation, or preaching to the disciples in the topmost recesses of the Bada. Starting from the southern to the northern face one comes across the figures of an emaciated ascetic and his disciple bathing a Liṅgam [Figure: General View of the Main Temple—Sūrya Deul Koṇārak—Puri District]

v2.c46.66

with water passing through a piece of cloth, the figure of an emaciated ascetic in trance with a plaited turban on is very significant; women have been represented as kneeling before him and the musicians as playing on tomtoms. The third figure represents a disciple offering a seat to an ascetic *guru*. The fourth is the repetition of the first, the fifth one is a devotee pouring water on a *Liṅgam* from a pot; another devotee is bringing two pots of water; the sixth one is an unimportant figure; the seventh one, that of a sage in the act of writing while two of his disciples are standing with folded hands; the eighth one is that of a man bathing a *Siva Liṅgam* with water from a rinsed cloth. The ninth one represents the worship of *Siva*; one of the figures here is mutilated. The tenth scene represents a *guru* reading from a book supported on a trestle, and turbaned disciples are listening; the eleventh one is a *guru* discoursing to turbaned disciples, while another disciple is reading apart.¹

v2.c46.67

¹ *Ibid.*, p. 285.

v2.c46.68

We must now turn to a class of temples which intervene between the first group of mediaeval temples (Paraśurāmeśvara-Gandharāḍi-Mukteśvara) of Orissa and the third (Liṅgarāja-Ananta-Vāsudeva), hitherto regarded as the second. This group is better known from the group of three-shrined Tantric temples at Baudh² in the Tributary States of Orissa and from the Kutai-Tundi or Nilakaṇṭheśvara and Candrasekhara at Khiching³ in the Mayurabhañj State, as well as certain temples at Bhuvaneśvara. The principal characteristics of this second group are the want of a *maṇḍapa* or a *Jagamohana* and the sudden curvature of the *Śikhara* inwards near the top. This second characteristic is not present in the two existing temples at Khiching on account of the influence exerted on Kolhan temples by the art and architecture of South-western Bengal. We are not in a position to determine what was the shape of the great temple at Khiching, on the ruins of which the Khandiya Deul was built, but from the style of sculptures and decorative motifs recovered from the interior of the Khandiya Deul it is certain that this great temple belonged to the age of the Mukteśvara. The best examples of human figures are the Nāga,¹ the image of Śiva,² Nāgīs³ and as regards decorative art, the pilaster,⁴ the plinth⁵ mouldings, and the exquisite Nāga⁶ pillar. Leaving out of consideration the two temples at Khiching which show extraneous influence, we have to fall back upon the three temples at Baudh and a number of minor temples at Bhuvaneśvara which never had any *Jagamohana* and in some of which the *Jagamohana* is a later addition. In the three temples at Baudh the place of the *Jagamohana* is taken by a very small *Antarāla* or porch supported by two pillars in front and two pilasters. It may be argued that as the older temple of Paruśurāmeśvara and Mukteśvara and the Gandharāḍi temples as well as the later group of Liṅgarāja-Ananta Vāsudeva possess *Jagamohanas*, what objection there may be to place the temples of the Baudh type at a much later date. The answer is quite simple. Chanda has proved that there is a chronological sequence in the art of the Krittivāsa or the Liṅgarāja and the ruined temple at Khiching on the plinth of which the Khandiya Deul has been built.¹ This art sequence can be used to indicate and establish a similar sequence in the case of the evolution of the mediaeval temple type in Orissa. There is also a second line of evidence about this. At Bhuvaneśvara, in and around the temple of Liṅgarāja, there are some shrines which never possessed a *Jagamohana*. Many of these are certainly older than the great temple of Liṅgarāja. The temple of Bhāskareśvara lies due west of the Megheśvara. The present temple is a late structure, being later than the 12th century but the original temple was old, as the shrine is mentioned in the *Brahma-Purāṇa*. It possesses no *Jagamohana*.

v2.c46.69

² *Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society*, Vol. XV, Pl. IV-V.

v2.c46.70

³ *Chanda—Bhanja Dynasty of Mayurbhanj and Their Ancient Capital Khiching*: Pl. IV(a), VI.

v2.c46.71

¹ *Ibid.*, *Pl.* XIV(a).

v2.c46.72

² *Ibid.*, *Pl.* XIX.

v2.c46.73

³ *Ibid.*, *Pls.* XXII-XXIII.

v2.c46.74

⁴ *Ibid.*, *Pl.* XVI.

v2.c46.75

⁵ *Ibid.*, *Pl.* XVII.

v2.c46.76

⁶ *Not published yet.*

v2.c46.77

¹ *Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1923-24.*

v2.c46.78

There are a number of temples, the names of which vary according the whims of the local priests, in front of the main gate of the Liṅgarāja, behind the Liṅgarāja along the road from that temple to the railway crossing and from Bhuvaneśvara Railway station to the Vaitāl Deul. None of these ever possessed a *Jagamohana*. In some of these there is a projecting eave or *Antarāla* over the door of the temple. The Bhuvaneśvara temples without *Jagamohana* are mostly in a dilapidated condition and, in comparison with them, two of the three temples at Baudh are in a fair state of preservation. The decorative motifs and the plastic art of the three temples at Baudh are certainly superior to and older than the great Liṅgarāja-Ananta-Vāsudeva group. If the Liṅgarāja is to be placed any where in the 10th century A. D., then the Baudh temples must be placed in the middle of the 9th century. Computing at this rate, the temple of Chandraśekhara should be dated about 900 A. D., and such temples of Bhuvaneśvara as possess a Śikhara of the type of the Liṅgarāja or Ananta-Vāsudeva should be placed after the middle of 9th and before that of the 10th century A. D.

v2.c46.79

One particular feature of the Baudh temples is worth particular attention. Their plan is quite different from that of any other temples discovered up to date in Orissa. In plan these three temples are eight-rayed stars and the Argha-paṭṭas of the Liṅgas are also similar.

v2.c46.80

Returning to the Bhuvaneśvara group, we find that in the third group the temples of Liṅgarāja, Ananta-Vāsudeva and Brahmeśvara stand prominent. The temple of Liṅgarāja is ascribed to a mythical king named Yayāti-Keśarī, who is probably the same as Mahāśivagupta Yayāti, the son and successor of Mahābhavagupta Janamejaya.¹ The late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly has taken great pains to prove that Mahāśivagupta reigned in the 9th century A. D., but the recent discovery of the inscriptions of the two groups of Kara kings² and the certain evidence of Chinese history about the identity and date of Śubhakara makes it impossible to think of the Somavaṁśī dynasty as reigning in Northern or Central Orissa at that date. Moreover, if the Paraśurāmeśvara was built about the middle of the eighth century, since [Figure: Vimāna of the Liṅgarāja—View from the North Bhuvanesvara—Puri District]

v2.c46.81

¹ See Ante. Vol. I, p. 212.

v2.c46.82

² See Ante. Vol. I, p. 153.

v2.c46.83

the inscription of the Navagraha-slab will not permit it to be taken to any earlier period, the Liṅgarāja must be placed at least two centuries later.

v2.c46.84

It must be remembered that in talking of the Liṅgarāja or the Kṛittivāsa, the Ananta-Vāsudeva or the Brahmeśvara, which at present consist of a Vimāna, Jagamohana, Nāṭamandira, and Bhogamaṇḍapa, i.e., one sanctum and the three maṇḍapas, we are concerned, before the end of the 12th century, with the original structure consisting of a Vimāna and a Jagamohana. The temples which we have selected to represent the types of the third period in the evolution of mediaeval temples in Orissa, Liṅgarāja or Kṛittivāsa and the Ananta-Vāsudeva, show the Vimāna with a Śikhara which curves suddenly towards the end near the Āmalaka and the Jagamohana is a rectangular chamber with a stepped pyramid as its roof. There is ample evidence on the eastern face of the Jagamohana to show that the Nāṭmandir of the Liṅgarāja is a later addition.

v2.c46.85

Like the Sūrya Deul at Konarak, so much has been written on the Liṅgarāja, commonly known as the Great Temple of Bhuvanesvara, that it is difficult to determine how much of it should be left unsaid at the beginning of the 20th century. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that amateur writers like the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly were wrong in assigning it to the 9th century and that Coomarswamy and Chanda are substantially correct in placing it in the 10th¹; The third type of mediaeval Orissan temples is a fixed type which underwent very few changes in subsequent centuries. The change was mainly in the contour of the *Śikhara* and the addition of two other *Maṇḍapas*. The *Vimāna* was planned like the two earlier types by intersecting rectangles which produced a number of facets on all four faces. The *Jagamohana* is also oblong, longer but less broad than the *Vimāna*,¹ except in certain cases, where it is a square.²

v2.c46.86

¹ Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1923-24, History of Art in India and Indonesia, p. 115.

v2.c46.87

¹ Fergusson—History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, Vol. II, London, 1910, p. 99, fig. 314.

v2.c46.88

² Ibid., p. 103, fig. 317; 108, fig. 319.

v2.c46.89

All *Jagamohanas* of the third type, either at Bhuvanesvara or Puri or Konarak, are lofty halls, the heavy weight of the roof of which required additional supports in the shape of four free standing pillars in the centre. The pyramidal roof begins at a lower level than the top of these pillars and goes on ascending till it reaches the level of the capitals of these pillars, which are square in section. Four lintels placed on these pillars support one or two steps of the pyramid, which goes on ascending till it reaches the final. Towards the top the roof of the *Jagamohana* is a regular trabeate dome like the roofs of *Maṇḍapas* in North-Central and North-Western *Nāgara* temples. On the upper side the roof of the *Jagamohana* is a regular stepped pyramid ending in an *Āmalaka* and *Chūḍāmaṇi*.

v2.c46.90

The late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly has taken very great pains to collect all known architectural terms still used by stone-cutters in Orissa. The terms used to denote the elevation of a *Vimāna* show that, though some of them are Sanskritic, the majority are modern vernacular and therefore cannot be older than the 13th century A. D.³

v2.c46.91

³ Orissa and Her Remains, Pl. II.

v2.c46.92

The names indicating component parts of plans¹ and the elevation of *Jagamohanas*² have also been collected, but they are of very little utility to modern students of Indian Architecture. Of greater interest are the names of the details of the plinth mouldings.³

v2.c46.93

¹ *Ibid.*, *p. 112.*

v2.c46.94

² *Ibid.*, *Pl. III.*

v2.c46.95

³ *Ibid.*, *Pl. IV (A).*

v2.c46.96

The *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana* of the temple of Liṅgarāja or Kṛittivāsa are the most stupendous structures at present existing in Orissa. Their construction is a subject of very great interest to the students of Indian Architecture. Up to 1924 the priests of these two temples kept the interiors of both structures covered with dirty wooden ceilings. Fortunately, the Liṅgarāja temple required repairs very urgently and the author was deputed by the Archaeological Survey, of India to advise the Public Works Department of the Government of Bihar and Orissa in these repairs. At my request the wooden ceilings were removed and the principle of construction stood revealed. There was nothing of importance, which was not known, in the construction of the *Jagamohana*; but that of the *Vimāna* was a revelation to many. The *Vimāna* of the Kṛittivāsa possesses a single opening on the east. During the repairs it was discovered that the stone door-frame from which the wooden gates are hung, conceals behind it two different stone door-frames, the sizes of which do not correspond. The stone lintel of the front door-frame is much lower than that of the rear one, proving thereby that the *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana* were not built at the same time. When both of them were finished sufficient care was taken to finish the exterior in such a fashion as not to leave any indication of the joining of the structure from the outside, a precaution neglected on two subsequent occasions, when the Nāṭamandira and the Bhogamaṇḍapa were built. After the removal of the wooden ceiling from the interior of the Vimāna it was found to be a tall chamber with a flat roof, composed of heavy slabs laid lengthwise. Over this there was another chamber, access to which was obtained by a steep staircase built through the thickness of the sides of the Śikhara. Mr. Sanat Kumar Rai Chaudhuri, then Executive Engineer, Cuttack Division, ascended this staircase and found the upper chamber lighted by a window. A number of men, whose duty it is to ascend the Śikhara on certain occasions, in order to place lamps on the top of the Āmalaka, state that they can see another window of another chamber over this one, but it is not known at the present day whether there is any method of ingress into it. It is, therefore, certain that the Śikhara of the Liṅgarāja is a hollow pyramid and its interior consists of a number of superimposed chambers, gradually decreasing in size like those of the great temples at Bodh-Gaya and Konch, near Tikari, in the Gaya district of Bihar. The weight of the Śikhara was further reduced by the construction of great trabeate arches in the sides, just over the top of the wall of the Vimāna. The masonry is strongly bounded and there is no core of rubble, as in the case of many early Musalman buildings of India. The stones of the Śikhara were kept in place by the heavy weight of the Āmalaka, which projects a good deal beyond its base. To keep the projection uninjured and in place, a number of stone brackets, shaped as lions, surround the Āmalaka [Figure: Vimāna of the Rāja-Rāṇi Temple Bhuvanesvara—Puri District]

v2.c46.97

from its base. According to the calculations of the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly, the height of the *Vimāna* of the *Liṅgarāja* is 127 feet.¹

v2.c46.98

¹ *Ibid., pp. 349-51.*

v2.c46.99

The *Jagamohana* of the *Liṅgarāja* is an exceedingly interesting structure. Originally there were two windows, one to the north and another to the south of this structure, covered with huge stone bars, and the entrance lay in front. On this side two heavy pylons were constructed to bear the additional thrust. They were mutilated when Anaṅga Bhīma I added the *Nāṭamandira* in the 12th century. The facade of the *Jagamohana* was exceedingly well designed and was a beautiful and imposing sight before the addition of the *Nāṭamandira*. During the repairs to *Liṅgarāja* temple I ascended the roof of the *Nāṭamandira* and found a large projecting cave over the point where the eastern wall of the *Jagamohana* joins the rear or western wall of the *Jagamohana*. The beautiful *chaitya*-window over the roof of the *Nāṭamandira* had been ruthlessly mutilated and no attempt made to conceal the later addition. The *Jagamohana* is provided with a heavy projecting cornice like the later Chālukyan temples of the Canarese districts (Belgaum, Dharwar and North Kanara districts of Bombay, the Bellary district of the Madras Presidency and the northernmost districts of the Mysore State). According to the calculations of the late Mr. Mono Mohan Ganguly the *Jagamohana* of the *Liṅgarāja* is 89 ft. 2 ins. high. There are two openings on the sides, one of which is now a doorway and the other a window, closed with large pillars used as bars. Over each of the side openings there is a long bas relief. The doorway is on the south side and, instead of a *Navagraha* slab, we find that this bas relief and the ornamentation over this portion are exactly the same on the north. These two factors prove that originally the southern opening of the *Jagamohana* was also a window. There are tall openings on the east and the west of the *Jagamohana*, leading to the *Naṭamandira* and the *Vimāna* respectively. The window on the north is 7 ft. 5 ins. broad and the space is covered by five pillars, on each of which there were female figures as ornaments, now very much damaged. The *Naṭamandira* of the *Liṅgarāja*, as has been stated above, is a later structure like the *Jagamohana*, according to the late Mr. Ganguly. There is an inscription on the right jamb, according to which the *Naṭamandira* was built by Narasimha I and the *Bhogamaṇḍapa* by Anaṅgabhīma, who is supposed to have ruled in the middle of the 13th century and therefore must be Anaṅgabhīma II.¹ These inscriptions have not been properly edited as yet, though impressions of the whole lot were taken several times,—for the late Dr. Th. Bloch in 1906, for Dr. D. B. Spooner and for the last time by Dr. A. Banerji-Śāstri in 1925-26.

v2.c46.100

¹ *Ibid.*, 368

v2.c46.101

There are numerous large and small temples inside the enclosure of the *Liṅgarāja*, of which the most important is the very small but infinitely beautiful shrine of Pārvatī. In proportion, grace, beauty of outline and chastity of decorative motifs, this shrine is far superior to the great temple itself. It also consists of four different parts: *Vimāna*, *Jagamohana*, *Naṭamandira* and *Bhogamaṇḍapa*. The *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana* appear to be contemporary and the earliest of the four. Just as in the *Jagamohana* of the *Liṅgarāja*, there is a door leading outside from the south side of this *Jagamohana* and a window on the north. The late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly was of opinion that "The date of its construction is unknown; but it is pretty certain that it must have been erected within two hundred years after the temple of *Liṅgarāja* came into existence."¹ There is no epigraphical evidence to prove the actual date of construction, but if the contour of the *Śikhara* and the execution of the decorative motifs are any sure criteria, then the temple of *Pārvatī* is much older than the *Naṭamaṇḍira* of the *Liṅgarāja* and is very probably of the same date as the *Vimāna* and the *Jagamohana* of that great temple. Unlike that of the great temple, the *Bhogamaṇḍapa* of the temple of *Pārvatī* is a plain structure without any ornamentation, more like a small porch. The only other factor worth noticing in the smaller temples in the compound of the *Liṅgarāja* is a small temple to the north of the *Naṭamaṇḍira* which contains an image of the Sun-God with four instead of seven horses. Mr. Mono Mohan Ganguly made a curious mistake with regard to this figure. He stated that "The only instance of the Sun God driving a four-horsed chariot is noticed in a bas relief of a pillar at Buddha-Gaya regarding which General Cunningham writes as follows...."²

First 101 of 160 passages. Read on

Linked texts (22)